Republic of the
Supreme
Court
FIRST DIVISION
METROPOLITAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
Petitioner, Present:
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
-versus- CARPIO MORALES,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
and
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.
TRACKWORKS RAIL TRANSIT
ADVERTISING, VENDING Promulgated:
AND PROMOTIONS, INC.,
Respondent. December 16, 2009
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
BERSAMIN,
J.:
This
case concerns whether the Metropolitan
Manila Development Authority (MMDA) could unilaterally dismantle the billboards,
signages and other advertizing media in the structures of the Metro Rail Transit
3 (MRT3) installed by respondent advertising company by virtue of its existing
contract with the owner of the MRT3.
The
trial and appellate courts ruled that MMDA did not have the authority to
dismantle. MMDA is now before the Court to assail such adverse ruling.
Antecedents
In
1997, the Government, through the Department of Transportation and Communications,
entered into a build-lease-transfer agreement (BLT agreement) with Metro Rail Transit
Corporation, Limited (MRTC) pursuant to Republic Act No. 6957 (Build, Operate and Transfer Law), under
which MRTC undertook to build MRT3 subject to the condition that MRTC would own
MRT3 for 25 years, upon the expiration of which the ownership would transfer to
the Government.
The BLT agreement
stipulated, among others, that MRTC could build and develop commercial premises
in the MRT3 structures, or obtain advertising income therefrom, viz:
16.1. Details of Development Rights. DOTC hereby confirms and awards to Metro Rail the rights to (a) develop commercial premises in the Depot and the air space above the Stations, which shall be allowed to such height as is legally and technically feasible, (b) lease or sub-lease interests or assign such interests in the Depot and such air space and (c) obtain any advertising income from the Depot and such air space and LRTS Phase I….
“LRTS Phase I” means the rail transport system comprising about 16.9 line kilometers extending from Taft Avenue, Pasay City, to North Avenue, Quezon City, occupying a strip in the center of EDSA approximately 10.5 meters wide (approximately 12 meters wide at or around the Boni Avenue, Santolan and Buendia Stations), plus about 0.1 to 0.2 line kilometers extending from the North Avenue Station to the Depot, together with the Stations, 73 Light Rail Vehicles and all ancillary plant, equipment and facilities, as more particularly detailed in the Specifications.
16.2. Assignment of Rights. During the Development Rights Period, Metro Rail shall be entitled to assign all or any of its rights, titles and interests in the Development Rights to bona fide real estate developers. In this connection, Metro Rail may enter into such development, lease, sub-lease or other agreements or contracts relating to the Depot and the air space above the Stations (the space not needed for all or any portion of the operation of the LRTS) for all or any portion of the Development Rights Period….
In
1998, respondent Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising, Vending & Promotions,
Inc. (Trackworks) entered into a contract for advertising services with MRTC. Trackworks
thereafter installed commercial billboards, signages and other advertizing
media in the different parts of the MRT3.
In 2001, however, MMDA requested Trackworks to dismantle the billboards,
signages and other advertizing media pursuant to MMDA Regulation No. 96-009, whereby
MMDA prohibited the posting, installation and display of any kind or form of
billboards, signs, posters, streamers, in any part of the road, sidewalk,
center island, posts, trees, parks and open space. After Trackworks refused the
request of MMDA, MMDA proceeded to dismantle the former’s billboards and similar
forms of advertisement.
On
March 1, 2002, Trackworks filed against MMDA in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pasig City an injunction suit (with
prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order [TRO] and preliminary
injunction), docketed as Civil Case No. 68864.
On
Without filing a motion for reconsideration to challenge the RTC’s issuances, MMDA
brought a petition for certiorari and
prohibition before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as C.A.-G.R. SP No.
70932, but the CA denied the petition and affirmed the RTC on
Thence, MMDA appealed to this Court (G.R. No. 167514), which denied MMDA’s petition for review on
Ruling of the RTC
In the meanwhile, on
Ruling of the CA
MMDA appealed the RTC’s decision to
the CA.
On April 30, 2007, the CA denied the
MMDA’s appeal,[3] holding
that Trackworks’ right to install billboards, signages and other advertizing
media on the interior and exterior structures of the MRT3 must be protected by
a writ of permanent injunction; and that MMDA had no power to dismantle, remove
or destroy Trackworks’ billboards, signages and other advertizing media.[4]
MMDA moved for reconsideration, but the
CA resolution denied the motion for
reconsideration on
Hence, this appeal by petition for
review.
Issues
MMDA claims that its mandate under
its charter[6] of
formulating, coordinating and monitoring of policies, standards, progress and
projects for the use of thoroughfares and the promotion of safe and
convenient movement of persons and goods
prompted its issuance of MMDA Regulation No. 96-009, which reads in part:
h. ) It is unlawful for any person/s, private or public corporations, advertising and promotions companies, movie producers, professionals and service contractors to post, install, display any kind or form of billboards, signs, posters, streamers, professional service advertisements and other visual clutters in any part of the road, sidewalk, center island, posts, trees parks and open space.
MMDA avers that the conversion of the
center island of Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue (EDSA) into the carriageway of
the MRT3 line did not exempt the EDSA center island from the coverage of the
MMDA regulation;[7] that the Government’s grant of development rights to MRTC was not an
abdication of its right to regulate, and, therefore, the development of the
MRT3 remained subject to all existing and applicable national and local laws,
ordinances, rules and regulations;[8] that
MMDA was merely implementing existing and applicable laws;[9] that
Trackworks’ advertising materials were placed indiscriminately and without due
regard to safety, and as such might be classified as obstructions and
distractions to the motorists traversing EDSA;[10] and
that the interests of a few should not prevail
over the good of the greater number in the community whose safety and
general welfare MMDA was mandated to protect.[11]
Trackworks
maintains, on the other hand, that MMDA’s petition was defective for its
failure to raise any genuine question of law; and that the CA’s decision dated
Ruling of the Court
The
petition has no merit.
That
Trackworks derived its right to install its billboards, signages and other
advertizing media in the MRT3 from MRTC’s authority under the BLT agreement to
develop commercial premises in the MRT3 structure or to obtain advertising
income therefrom is no longer debatable. Under the BLT agreement, indeed, MRTC
owned the MRT3 for 25 years, upon the expiration of which MRTC would transfer
ownership of the MRT3 to the Government.
Considering that MRTC remained to be
the owner of the MRT3 during the time material
to this case, and until this date, MRTC’s entering into the contract for
advertising services with Trackworks was a valid exercise of ownership by the
former. In fact, in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Trackworks
Rail Transit Advertising, Vending & Promotions, Inc.,[13] this Court expressly recognized
Trackworks’ right to install the billboards, signages and other advertising
media pursuant to said contract. The latter’s right should, therefore, be
respected.
It
is futile for MMDA to simply invoke its legal mandate to justify the
dismantling of Trackworks’ billboards, signages and other advertising media. MMDA
simply had no power on its own to dismantle, remove, or destroy the billboards,
signages and other advertising media installed on the MRT3 structure by
Trackworks. In Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.,[14] Metropolitan Manila Development Authority
v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc.,[15] and Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority v. Garin,[16] the Court had the occasion to rule
that MMDA’s powers were limited to the formulation, coordination, regulation,
implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies,
installing a system, and administration. Nothing in Republic Act No. 7924 granted
MMDA police power, let alone legislative power.[17]
Clarifying the real nature of MMDA,
the Court held:
xxx The MMDA is, as termed in the charter itself, a “development authority”. It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with the various national government agencies, people’s organizations, non-governmental organizations and the private sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area. All its functions are administrative in nature and these are actually summed up in the charter itself, viz:
Sec.2. Creation of the Metropolitan
The MMDA shall perform planning, monitoring and
coordinative functions, and in the process exercise regulatory and supervisory authority
over the delivery of metro-wide services within Metro Manila, without
diminution of the autonomy of local government units concerning purely local matters.[18]
The Court also agrees with the CA’s ruling
that MMDA Regulation No. 96-009 and MMC Memorandum Circular No. 88-09 did not apply
to Trackworks’ billboards, signages and other advertising media. The
prohibition against posting, installation and display of billboards, signages
and other advertising media applied only to public areas, but MRT3, being private
property pursuant to the BLT agreement between the Government and MRTC, was not
one of the areas as to which the prohibition applied. Moreover, MMC Memorandum Circular No. 88-09
did not apply to Trackworks’ billboards, signages and other advertising media
in MRT3, because it did not specifically cover MRT3, and because it was issued
a year prior to the construction of MRT3 on the center island of EDSA. Clearly,
MMC Memorandum Circular No. 88-09 could not have included MRT3 in its
prohibition.
MMDA’s
insistence that it was only implementing Presidential Decree No. 1096 (Building Code) and its implementing
rules and regulations is not persuasive. The power to enforce the provisions of
the Building Code was lodged in the
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), not in MMDA, considering the
law’s following provision, thus:
Sec. 201. Responsibility for Administration and Enforcement. –
The administration and enforcement of the provisions of this Code including the imposition of penalties for administrative violations thereof is hereby vested in the Secretary of Public Works, Transportation and Communications, hereinafter referred to as the “Secretary.”
There is also no evidence showing that MMDA had been
delegated by DPWH to implement the Building Code.
WHEREFORE,
we deny the petition for review, and affirm the decision
dated
Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Metro
[2] Rollo, pp. 15-16.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Sec. 3 (b), Republic Act No. 7924.
[7] Rollo, p. 42.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Ibid.
[12]
[13] G.R.
No. 167514,
[14] G.R. No. 135962,
[15] G.R. Nos. 170656 and
170657, 15 August 2007, 530 SCRA 341.
[16] G.R. No. 130230,
[17] Supra, note 14, p. 849.
[18]